Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Professions Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate backs anesthesiologist-assistant licensing bill after questions on training and supervision
Summary
Senators debated and approved a bill to license anesthesiologist assistants, with sponsors citing workforce shortages and training standards comparable to other states; questions focused on differences with nurse anesthetists, supervision limits and whether the change would lower costs.
The Utah Senate advanced legislation creating a licensure category for anesthesiologist assistants, with the sponsor arguing the measure addresses workforce shortages and aligns Utah with roughly 17 other states.
Sponsor identified in the floor record as Senator Mikel described the proposal as a policy decision about whether certified anesthesia assistants should be authorized in Utah. He told colleagues the assistants would have a science background, a bachelor’s degree, a master's degree and about 2,600 hours of clinical training. "We have folks that have this licensure. They're qualified," the sponsor said, arguing the state should allow the licensure and that other states have not shown increased harm from the model.
Senator Davis and other senators pressed the sponsor on differences between certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) and the proposed assistants, and on supervision and deployment across operating rooms. The sponsor stated an anesthesiologist must be on-site and indicated an anesthesiologist could supervise up to four assistants at a time. When asked whether the bill would save insurers or patients money, the sponsor said he did not have data showing savings and that billing codes are likely to remain the same; he emphasized the bill's purpose is to fill open positions and expand access to needed services.
Senator Wyler and others asked whether other states that allow anesthesiologist assistants have documented harms; the sponsor said he had not seen evidence of greater harm and pointed to comparative data and actuary input he had reviewed. Senator Vickers asked whether the change would reduce costs for patients or insurers; the sponsor said cost savings were not evident in the materials he reviewed but framed the bill as an access and workforce measure rather than a cost-cutting step.
After floor debate and roll-call, the clerk recorded the bill as passing its reading (the transcript shows the third-reading announcement at 23 yeas, 3 nays, 3 absent in the clerk's report when the bill was read). The bill now moves to the next steps required for enrollment and implementation by regulatory agencies.
The record of the floor exchange focuses on training standards, supervision rules, and workforce needs rather than immediate cost savings; further rulemaking and administrative guidance will be necessary to set licensing and supervision details if the bill becomes law.
